Article

Utilizzo clinico odontoiatrico di un erogatore di anestetico locale a controllo computerizzato

Dental Cadmos 01/2014; 82(1):60–66.

ABSTRACT Objectives
The aim of this paper is to ascertain and underline the advantages of using a computer-controlled anesthetic injection system.

Materials and methods
The use of STA Single Tooth Anesthesia System is reported in details. And again, a clinical case is presented where local anesthetic technique on dental entities (46 and 47) was performed by means of STA System.

Results and conclusions
The STA System technique anesthetizes a tooth using a painless intraligamentary injection without damaging the periodontal ligament, which highly reduces the need of executing the troncular anesthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve. By using this anesthesia technique a more accurate recording of the occlusal relationship as well as a more reliable evaluation of the patient's aesthetics during a conservative or prosthetic dental therapy are achieved.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
53 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The conventional inferior alveolar nerve block is sometimes ineffective for certain clinical and anatomical reasons. As a result, alternative methods have been suggested. This double-blind study compared the effectiveness of the Akinosi technique and conventional mandibular block injection techniques in 250 patients. It was concluded that the conventional or direct technique was more effective in achieving inferior alveolar nerve anaesthesia.
    Australian Dental Journal 03/1995; 40(1):15-6. · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors conducted a study to compare administration of local anesthetic using a computer-controlled delivery device with an aspirating syringe for therapeutic scaling and root planing. The anterior middle superior alveolar, or AMSA, injection was compared with other maxillary injections. Twenty healthy adults with moderate periodontal disease participated in this single-blind crossover study. Subjects were evaluated by a trained examiner and were treated by experienced dental hygienists. Subjects provided written and verbal pain ratings via a visual analog scale, or VAS, and a verbal rating scale, or VRS. AMSA injections were compared with syringe-delivered injections--greater palatine, or GP, and nasopalatine, or NP, blocks, and anterior superior alveolar and middle superior alveolar injections--in maxillary quadrants. Bleeding and changes in attachment were evaluated after one month. VAS and VRS scores for AMSA were significantly lower for computer-controlled delivery when compared with NP injections and combined maxillary injections (VAS scores) and with GP and combined maxillary injections (VRS scores). Mean injection times were similar for both groups. Mean gains in attachment were equal, 0.19 millimeters for quadrants anesthetized using computer-controlled injections and 0.22 mm for syringe injections. Subjects reported having less pain with GP and NP injections delivered using the computer-controlled device, and total injection time was similar to that required for syringe injections. Both techniques provided adequate anesthesia for therapeutic scaling and root planing. Clinical Implications. The two anesthetic delivery techniques were therapeutically equivalent for mandibular injections, and the AMSA injection has clinically significant advantages for maxillary injections.
    Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 04/2004; 135(3):358-65. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three identical single-dose, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled multicenter studies were conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of articaine HCl (4% with epinephrine 1:100,000) to that of lidocaine HCl (2% with epinephrine 1:100,000) in patients aged 4 years to 79 years, with subgroup analysis on subjects 4 to < 13 years. Fifty subjects under the age of 13 years were treated in the articaine group and 20 subjects under the age of 13 were treated with lidocaine. Subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive articaine or lidocaine. Efficacy was determined on a gross scale immediately following the procedure by having both the subject and investigator rate the pain experienced by the subject during the procedure using a visual analog scale (VAS). Safety was evaluated by measuring vital signs before and after administration of anesthetic (1 and 5 minutes post-medication and at the end of the procedure) and by assessing adverse events throughout the study. Adverse events were elicited during telephone follow-up at 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. Pediatric patients received equal volumes, but higher mg/kg doses, of articaine than lidocaine during both simple and complex dental procedures. Pain ratings: Articaine: VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) scores (from 0 to 10 cm) by patients 4 to < 13 years of age were 0.5 for simple procedures and 1.1 for complex procedures, and average investigator scores were 0.4 and 0.6 for simple and complex procedures, respectively. Lidocaine: patients 0.7 (simple) and 2.3 (complex); investigators 0.3 (simple) and 2.8 (complex). Adverse events: No serious adverse events related to the articaine occurred. The only adverse event considered related to articaine was accidental lip injury in one patient. VAS scores indicate that articaine is an effective local anesthetic in children and that articaine is as effective as lidocaine when measured on this gross scale. Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 is a safe and effective local anesthetic for use in pediatric dentistry. Time to onset and duration of anesthesia are appropriate for clinical use and are comparable to those observed for other commercially available local anesthetics.
    Pediatric dentistry 01/2000; 22(4):307-11. · 0.56 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
28 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014